January 28, 2019

How to handicap the 2020 Democratic Primary: a view from the base

I'm writing as a long-time member of the Democratic Party base, a rank-and-file voter and regular volunteer. There are certain factors that come up when I and other Democrats talk about 2020, talk that began months ago. Now we're entering the invisible primary, with more discussion to sort out which candidates we might to support--and which should probably think that they're in it for the experience.

Spoiler: all these factors point to Bernie Sanders having zero chance of getting the Democratic nomination, while Kamala Harris is the (current) front-runner.

Factors:

1. A white man starts out behind. This factor is going to be *very* hard for journalists to recognize, because they're so deeply embedded in a system where white men are taken seriously much more than other people. For instance, they almost all work for white men.

I'm not saying that there's no way a white man could win the Democratic nomination. But he would have to be exceptional, because he starts out with a deficit. Specifically, a white man has to show a strong alliance with and support from some Democratic subgroup that is *not* mostly white men. This is a big reason why Beto O'Roarke's long-term prospects within the Democratic Party are so good: he respects, works with, and is supported by black women, among others. He's too inexperienced to be viable in 2020, but he's got a future.

Discussing our options for the 2016 primary, I said to a (black woman) friend, "I'm sick of being yelled at by white men." I am *so much more* sick of it now, words cannot express.

2. Candidates lose points with every year before 1950 they were born. Since World War II Democrats have a preference for younger candidates, which has increased as we've learned more about Reagan's health problems in office. We want a candidate whose health can reasonably extend through two terms of one of the most stressful jobs on the planet, and someone who's going to be over 70 in 2020 is not the best bet.

Elizabeth Warren was born in 1949. Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg were born in 1942. Bernie Sanders was born in 1941. Warren is the only one who has a serious chance IMHO.

3. The candidate will have to release their tax returns. Bernie got away without doing it in 2016, but it will not fly this time around. Even if there are no state laws or Party regulations in place to enforce financial transparency, we in the party base will insist on seeing where the candidate's money is coming from and going to.

4. The most important demographic in the Democratic Party is black women. The largest race+gender demo in the party is white women (like myself), but black women are the most loyally and consistently Democratic.

I make a point of following a lot of people of color on Twitter--since it's hard *not* to get white people's opinions about everything, getting different points of view takes work. I do it on Twitter because it's a medium well-suited to listening to people talking to each other without my presence influencing their conversation.

What I see is that black voters, women in particular, are small-c conservative in their choices. That is, they don't tend to fall for trendy or stunt candidates. They want to see a track record of policy and accomplishment, and they *will* have the receipts. Democracy and government aren't spectator sports for them, their lives and those of their children are frequently and literally on the line. They vote, and they take voting seriously.

So far there's been one straw poll of influential women of color, and it showed Kamala Harris as the runaway favorite. More important IMHO is that the pollees' #1 suggestion for "how to inspire and engage" them is "Hire more women of color in leadership positions." Thus: if a candidate's early hires do not include any women of color, they are not trying to connect with this crucial demographic--or at least they will not succeed.

So: if you're looking at journalism or commentary about the 2020 Democratic nomination, anyone who says Kamala Harris is *not* the frontrunner has to explain why. I've seen a lot of analysis over the past year or so saying Joe Biden or even Bernie Sanders is the "obvious" frontrunner, or that there's a place in the Democratic primary for a random billionaire, but that's laughable. Such people will only be comfortable with a Democratic candidate who has the look and feel of a Republican: old, white, male, moneyed. Nope, not gonna happen.

Adam Silverman's analysis sees the same factors I do (though he phrases them more coothly), but he points out that Sanders is likely to keep in the race as an Independent after he loses the Democratic nomination early in the process. There is a very real danger that he'll be a Nader-like spoiler in the general election,

And if he decides he’s going to be a team player and not do so, his trusted agents won’t play ball and you’ll have the same problem regardless. And we can now add Congresswoman Gabbard to the potential spoilers category emanating from Sanders orbit.

Silverman is a deeply experienced military analyst, and he emphasizes

that the US is at war. Putin has made it very clear since 2014 that as far as he was concerned Russia was, at least, in a new cold war with the US and the US was the aggressor.

We need to expect and plan for Russia to continue its program of manipulating US elections in its favor, which currently means in Trump's favor.

The Russians would be fools not to make a big push to have Sanders run third-party--and they are not fools. The Democratic Party and everyone who opposes Trump needs to start thinking and planning now about how to forestall, combat or defuse such a run. Can Sanders be persuaded to back Warren? Can some Democrat-friendly billionaire (not a terribly common animal) buy him off? Should we insist on seeing his tax returns before the 1st debate, so he leaves in shame and/or a huff?

That's the only justification for horse-race journalism at this point in the cycle: so that party members like myself have info we need to figure out who to support early and who to discourage.

Comments

Senator Harris is off to a strong start. Now she needs to keep it up. And survive the carping criticism that she's "not liberal enough" -- which is, admittedly, foreordained for any politician who is a former DA.

As for O'Rourke, I'd say that, for the immediate future, he'd make a great senator from Texas.

If Sanders runs Independent, he will suddenly be faced with all the oppo that the Dems have on him, but have refrained from using so far. I think he's intensely vulnerable on that front, and I hope he knows it.

My sense is that he's going to find this campaign dismaying: the flow of $27 contributions will have dwindled, the rallies will be much smaller, the opportunities to batten on ego-boosting adulation less frequent.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I do worry somewhat about the emphasis on black women voters this cycle, if it crowds out everything else. But that's because I live in a state and region where blacks are not the largest minority. In my becoming-safely-blue state, Blacks make up 4% of the population, while Latinx are 21%. There are no western states where blacks are the largest minority group, and some where they are not the second largest minority group.

Somewhat to Cleek's statement about polls, Harris has edged ahead of Biden in the betting odds and is leading the Democratic pack.

I don't think that the black women voters thing will crowd out the Latinx factor because the white supremacist undercurrent on the right is going to keep enough pressure on the political discourse that it will hold together a coalition-of-color. That pressure is already pushing the Vietnamese-American communities into the blue.

And as far as Colorado goes, much as I like him, I don't see a path to victory for Hickenlooper (even as VP) though it could put up some strong support for Beto. But I think that youth and gender will play against Beto this time as people look at him and figure he'll have plenty of chances to come.

Biden is the "front runner" in the polls right now because he's got name recognition. Which is all that's being measured. Until there's actually been enough activity for poll respondents to know more than just (some of!) the participants, it's silly to read much into them.

Neither do I. This cycle is going to be tough on white male Democratic governors seeking the nomination. It's crowded just with western governors: Bullock, Hickenlooper, Inslee. Hick and Bullock look like they're both going to try the "radical moderate" approach. Inslee is running on climate crisis. I am a climate crisis guy, and Inslee is the only one with that priority. I'm on Harris's campaign mailing list -- donate to one Dem regionally and they're all after you -- and got the opening day e-mail minutes after she announced. The only mention of the environment was "everybody should have clean air and clean water." The West is already f*cking burning down; can't we have a word about climate change?

It's striking to me that the pro pundits & journos haven't noticed the age issue and that, for Dem voters over 40-45, it's centered on concern that too old a candidate won't be fit for a 2nd term.

Yet another way that journos favor Rs, who don't worry about candidates being too old.

@Michael Cain: I, too, am a climate crisis person, but that's not enough to make me take Inslee seriously: his lack of name recognition (and of contacts in Washington: who would be in his cabinet?), age (he's 67), and white-guy-ness weigh too heavy in the balance.

I'll be interested to see whether Harris or Warren sees the climate crisis opening and goes for it.

The Democratic nominee could be a loaf of bread who picks a jug of wine for veep, and still get my vote in November 2020.

I am content to leave the choice of Democratic nominee to my fellow Democrats. I would prefer leaving the choice to only those Democrats who share my commitment, above, but I can't enforce that and it's a touchy subject anyway.

"Electability" is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump "electability" is bollocks.

My personal preference in the Democratic primary will be determined by a point system. Bash any Republican, you earn one point. Bash any Democrat, you lose two points. A half-point penalty for each utterance of: "the American people" when you mean "sane Americans"; "Washington" when you mean "Republicans in Washington"; or "God bless" if nobody nearby has sneezed.

Since the Constitution specifies two Senators from each state, and you can't change that without getting Wyoming to agree, I wonder whether we could somehow mandate that "two Senators" shall mean "one man and one woman". I would not mind, myself, if we changed the Constitution to require all Senators to be women, but I'll gladly settle for 50-50.

"Electability" is a unicorn I refuse to chase, when it comes to my personal vote in the Democratic primary. In a nation with an electoral system that is capable of coughing up He, Trump "electability" is bollocks.

I understand the sentiment. But the reality is that lack of "electability" (of Clinton) is what got us Trump. Yes, I know she got more votes (including mine). But her unpopularity with a big chunk of the electorate is what gave Trump a window to ooze thru.

I think experiencing the reality of Trump means that almost any Democrat could beat him. (With a caveat if a third party/independent candidate gets into the mix.) But that is not to say that the Democrats can't find someone so far out that he could manage to lose, even to Trump. I don't have anyone specific in mind at this point. Just sayin', it could be a problem if you insist that "electability" is totally irrelevant.

“I support a Green New Deal and I will tell you why: climate change is an existential threat and we have got to deal with the reality of it,” Harris said, before taking aim at Republicans in power. “We have got to deal with the reality of the fact that there are people trying to peddle some ideas that we should deny it. They are peddling science fiction instead of what we should do, which is rely on science fact.”

Having taught a bunch of science fiction and cli-fi in my college classes, I think she should embrace the power of speculative fiction ;). But she's definitely more than just "clean air and water."

When you announce your candidacy in a state that is already a leading force in climate change policy it starts to feel like preaching to the choir. I think she'll get her talking points calibrated to a wider audience pretty quickly.

i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we're pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we're through the nonsense the better.

Climate change is going to be a social media iceberg for younger voters, I think. From what I see on campus, that news will be spread more by activist groups and social media platforms than it will by big media coverage. None of my students read or watch the news. All their info comes through their personal networks.

And big media is still obsessed with performing their fairness to both teams to get behind the sort of structural change that we need to go through to stave off the worst of our climate stupidity and greed.

i only hope the Dem field is winnowed quickly. we're pretty good enough at party infighting already, and i know the GOP and their Russian allies are going to encourage more. so the quicker we're through the nonsense the better.

What I'm curious about, assuming we're talking mostly about the social-media stuff, is how effective the sort of thing that the Russians did in the run-up to the last election will be this time around, now that (sane) people know about it.

Perhaps it's my bias at work here, but I tend to think that what they've been doing is generally more effective on "conservatives" (in quotes for wj, who would call them reactionaries, which is what they are after all) than on moderates and liberals. Even in the last go-around, it appears that more of the misinformation was aimed at those on the right than those on the left (not exclusively at those on the right, just more, but significantly so).

I'll try to dig up the piece I recall reading, possibly on fivethirtyeight, about the different groups and issues that were targeted on social media and in what relative numbers.

Left Trolls often adopt the personae of Black Lives Matter activists, typically expressing support for Bernie Sanders and derision for Hillary Clinton, along with “clearly trying to divide the Democratic Party and lower voter turnout.”

I'd be willing to bet that there were a few foreign trolls on Democratic Underground spreading rumors around the primary voting snafus in NY and AZ, and the sharp elbows being thrown at the NV state convention to fuel the thumb-on-the-scale impression and outrage and direct it towards Wasserman-Schultz rather than towards local election dysfunction and typical convention shenanigans. Seems like a more effective leftist systempunkt catching the activist disseminators rather than the trailing edge.

Man, I just don’t get the Bernie hate. Megalomaniac, no tax returns, a campaign rife with misogynistic louses... even the Burlington Press hates him. And yet, the D platform has adopted a lot of his positions. And that’s a good thing(?!) The wildly popular and ascendant AOC worked for the campaign. And yet he’s an irrelevant voice, somehow.

I can’t wrap my head around that. Then again, I dunno how Kerry ended up looking less-military than W.

But I agree that the ship has probably sailed. It’s worth noting that he refused to run 3rd party so as to not split the vote in 2016, & there was a fair measure of push there. I can’t imagine he would do so now.

Biden has the recognition, early, but a continuation bet on Obama is as far as he could go. That ship also sailed in 2016.

From my Barcaloungesque fantasy politics league perch,I might take Booker as a late round sleeper. I don’t see what Gillibrand has to offer other than to get her name out there.

But it’s Harris’ race to lose going off. She ticks all the zeitgeist boxes and the DNC regulars are already lining up behind her. Not my ‘pure’ candidate, but I’d vote for her yesterday.

"I'm old enough to remember when people said that President Obama couldn't win, that President Trump couldn't win," Burton said.

So.....you're nineteen?

These people don't even know what words are coming out of their mouths. I haven't yet succeeded in entirely banning the words of pundits from my life, but I'm getting closer. I gave up TV years ago, surely I can give up most of the internet next.

Here's another gem from earlier today, the very first sentence of another piece on Schultz (I've lost track of the link):

“The announcement that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is considering an independent bid for the White House begs the question of in what reality Howard Schultz resides.”

The author is the son of a famous bow tie-wearing father. Is there a straight line of inherited attitude between bow ties and an abhorrence for ending sentences with prepositions, no matter how much you have to mangle a sentence to accomplish that goal?

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., is buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. His stone is unassuming, but it has a bow tie carved on it. I stumbled across it one day when I was taking a walk in that beautiful tree garden. The bow tie was a nice touch.

I'm kind of puzzled as to why Bernie was so reluctant to release his tax history, and why his supporters ignore that issue. Seems like a red flag to me.

For the record (and there is a record, although I'm lousy at searching it), I was very upbeat about both Bernie and Hillary in the early days of the campaign. It was only when Trump's candidacy seemed to be more and more enabled by "disappointed" lefties [in many cases, Russian bots, as we now know] that my own anger set in. Fingers crossed that it all turns out better this time.

Now that I have girded my sensitive bits with towels and duct tape and armed myself with particularly nasty kitchen instruments (and banked a prudent amount of blood), I'm going in to get this off my chest...

Bernie:

Self-serving: Isn't he one of the poorer members of the Senate? His march to power followed the traditional path - Vermont. IIRC, he refused to weigh in on his son's political aspirations. Doesn't strike me as a power-hungry guy. As for the tax returns, that bothered me as well. I dunno if that had anything to do with Jane's legal issues at the time. But he always struck me as someone who's more likely to have a 2-more-stamps-for-a-free-sandwich card in his wallet than a guy with a fortune squirreled away in the Caymans.

Tempermental: Sure. Curmudeonly. This is either a feature or a bug, depending on one's POV. Unsurprisingly, I consider it to be a feature. I like the rumpled old guy who has bigger things on his mind than what his hair looks like or what label is on his suit. I like that when listening to an audio version of one of his speeches, one would be hard pressed to figure if it was 2016 or 1996.
YMMV.

Not a True Democrat™: Like Manchin, or Lieberman, or... Michael Bloomberg. I don't know how one is supposed to differentiate one's position without "damaging" or "sabotaging" one's opponent. Do primary challenges harm or strengthen the eventual nominee? Practice/theory? Can one be on the same page as the Democratic party without wearing a Super-D on one's chest? This argument seems flimsy to me.

I want to be clear that Hillary has been an advocate for health care reform for some time, but she also made her - perhaps realistic - assessment of single-payer in the 2016 run-up, and it wouldn't pass the litmus test for 2020 candidates. So who is/was closer to Democratic Party values?

To be clearer furtherer, I don't think a Sanders campaign catches fire for 2020. White, old, and male (in no particular order), aren't motivating factors. I think "Our Revolution" can be a very influential force in the Democratic primary, but I expect that it will not coalesce until the field shakes out a bit more.

IMHO, the Democratic primary will have its share of picking nits, but the goal of ridding ourselves of Rump is first and foremost. I don't see that getting lost in the fog, although a concerted Russian/Chinese/other effort will likely make that fog at least as dense as the guy writing this post.

In other news, I just watched Schultz on "Morning Joe". This guy is an effin' nightmare.

OK, I'll stuff it now and for good on the matter. But be warned: I have a wooden spoon!

IMO, Sanders' self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:
1. clear the field of any Democratic challengers in VT elections. he runs in primaries as a Dem, wins, then runs in the general on the Special Bernie ticket.

2. give him committee assignments while doing nothing to support the Party that gives him those assignments.

3. give him a national platform to run for President, while pissing on the party that gives him that platform.

You may have your name placed on the general election ballot as an independent candidate if you are not affiliated with a political party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 1.005(9). If you vote in a party’s primary elections or participate in a party’s conventions, you thereby affiliate with the party. Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 142.008, 162.003, 162.007.

That doesn't explicitly say "if you win a party's primary" -- but it's clearly designed to prevent the kind of the cleek describes. I suspect it's aimed more at stopping someone from *losing* a primary and then running as an independent; I'm bemused (and appalled) that Bernie does it to win and then not run under the party label. What a jerk.

Yeah, I was being a bit glib there. But I think it stands to point that a Michael Bloomberg can change his affiliation as it suits his potential pursuits, and he suddenly becomes a full-fledged big-D Democrat($$$). Maybe not to the commentariat here, but perhaps sufficient to a broader public. Why else would it matter?

My point about Sanders - and I'm really not trying to belabor the point - is simply that many of his platform planks have been adopted by Democratic politicians across the board. So the argument that he's not a member of "The Party" is...?

Medicare for all. Living wage. Is that "Crazy Bernie" or the Democratic Party? Is it just a tin star?

so... i think "billionaire independents" are likely to be the media's shiny new object to chase around for a while.

The talking heads need something to stir up the mix, and Schultz types are lush grazing grounds for the 24/7 round tables. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

IMO, Sanders' self-centeredness is evident in how he uses the Democratic Party to:

My take is that Sanders thinks he's where the Democratic Party should be, and he's not joining until they move into his orbit. I hadn't really thought of it as self-centeredness, given the difference in mass, but I can see that perspective. Fair play.

I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn't a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you're supposed to do it.

My take is that Sanders thinks he's where the Democratic Party should be, and he's not joining until they move into his orbit...He wasn't a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you're supposed to do it.

Well, one other way to do it would be to do it from within the party. What makes you think change can't come from within? For that matter, Bernie may have been the visible voluble face of the change, but the party wouldn't have moved if it wasn't ready. Elizabeth Warren anyone?

Where's the rub?

There's nothing useful to be gained by being petulant about it, so they aren't. I have more leeway. ;-)

I will disagree about pissing on the party, tho. He threw his hat in the ring, within the practicalities of a 2-party system. He wasn't a spoiler, at least in terms of a 3rd party run, and moved the platform to a more progressive place. I dunno how else you're supposed to do it.

The party was at a fairly progressive place before Bernie's participation. The country, however, is at a much less progressive, and more authoritarian, place now - thanks in part to Bernie's participation, and his dragging the Democratic party.

That's the problem. If you want to see how a progressive Democrat can work within the party, see Nancy Pelosi. She's been vilified for various incomprehensible reasons (some of us have some theories), but basically, she has used her power to create real change. Of course, it wasn't single payer health care, so for some it was a bust. The stimulus package that rescued America from the financial crisis wasn't big enough; so for some it was a bust. Ethical government wasn't good enough - Obama had to eschew vacations. Clinton's transparency proved that she was wealthy, and had made some money on the speakers' circuit, and that her foundation had sought donations from wealthy in order to relieve the AIDS crisis in Africa. So she was a sellout. But Bernie didn't tell us about his finances, so somehow people thought he walked the walk as a true socialist.

It's all just rather annoying. Probably not a good idea to get angry all over again. I don't think he's going to get the nomination, but I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.

I hope his people can refrain from getting in the way of the candidate who prevails.

I'm not optimistic, and if it isn't them it'll be Schultz's minions, or Bloomberg's, or whoever. Not saying it's hopeless, just saying it's a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. ("We" broadly speaking.)

I live in a state that lived through eight years of the clown show put on by the governor who styled himself as "Trump before there was Trump" -- elected in part because of one guy with a huge ego running for office, not once but twice, and siphoning votes away from the Ds. We got ranked choice voting as the aftermath of those fiascos, but it still doesn't apply to in-state offices. At least we got Jared Golden into Congress with RCV.

I'm not optimistic, and if it isn't them it'll be Schultz's minions, or Bloomberg's, or whoever. Not saying it's hopeless, just saying it's a feature of the landscape that has to be dealt with as best we can. ("We" broadly speaking.)

I agree. There could be a lot of interesting and spirited conversations about political values and specific policies, but first we have to have a government that isn't working for a conspiracy of right-wing international mobsters. Baby steps.

Here's a question for the group: Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?

Too many variables, hsh. How many non-D, non-R candidates are there? Which ones and how formidable are they? Who's the R nominee if not Clickbait? How much cheating is there? (Hacking of voting machines; voter suppression; Russian interference again, or Chinese, for that matter.)

The earth will still be spinning tomorrow. That's about all I'm willing to predict.

Would it be better or worse for the Dem nominee if Trump gets challenged in a GOP primary, considering both the possibility that he wins and the possibility that he loses?

On balance, better. Because the Trump cultists are so fanatical that they will refuse to support anyone who challenges him and wins. And even if the challenger loses, there are going to be a lot of bad feelings dividing the GOP.

As a Republican myself, I really really hope someone challenges him and wins. Not because I expect that someone else would win the general election, but because it would be a first step in my party purging itself of the toxins that currently infest it.

Schultz says he isn't a Democrat and that the Democratic Party has moved "so far left" , and he is very worried about 'socialism'.

Clearly billionaires live in a different universe than the rest of us.

Has the Democratic Party moved left? Yes -- especially compared to the 1990s.

Does it show any significant prospect of "socialism"? No. Even those Democrats who claim to be something like socialists are, almost universally, merely demonstrating that they don't know what the word means.

I could see us moving to something as far left as say Sweden. Last I looked, companies like Volvo and Ericsson were in the global 500 largest. Not bad for what is, objectively, a small country. And I expect most of us have heard of Electrolux, IKEA, Spotify.

In short, it doesn't seem like much of an abandonment of capitalism. An abandonment (except that it's more of a never-was) of libertarianism? Yeah, that.

wj, the point isn't whether we're likely to go anywhere near real "socialism" -- the point is what you can get people to believe about those evil Democrats and their evil wish list of not having people end up as student debt slaves for their entire lives, people not losing their homes when they get sick, and on and on. Heaven and billionaires forbid.

I read that Schultz is flabbergasted that people (read: Elizabeth Warren) don't think becoming a billionaire is "the American dream." If that's the American dream, you can have it. Because it leaves totally out of account what it costs the rest of us, and our society, to have the wealth gap that we currently have. It's certainly not *my* dream for America.

The American electorate has a habit of re-electing incumbent presidents. Habits are hard to break. Let's keep that in mind while handicapping 2020.

Dumping He, Trump will take serious effort. The conventional wisdom, which I hear from Democratic politicians as well as the punditocracy, is that Democrats need to "stand for something" or "offer a positive vision" and not just oppose Putin's Little Bitch. That worries me.

Don't get me wrong. Of course I want to see Democrats championing good policy proposals. Good policy proposals are good in and of themselves; under favorable circumstances they can even lead to good policy. But opinions vary on what "good" means. Ask Marty next time he drops by.

What "bad" means may be easier to agree on. Treason, corruption, viciousness, incompetence, petulance -- most people would agree those are bad things. Not-good "branding". Pointing out that He, Trump wallows in all of them is a job we Democrats will have to do alone and unaided by a Broderist media.

"I want to make your life better" is a fine message. "You're getting ripped off and I want to put a stop to it" may be less noble, less idealistic, less polite -- but (I claim) more likely to resonate with the wishy-washy swing-voting part of the electorate. It's also not remotely incompatible with good policy proposals.

I'm starting to get a sense of what Marty must feel like. So I'm gonna take joel's advice.

In other news, Steve Schmidt, whose Trump take-downs I occasionally find humorous, was just on MSNBC sounding a lot like he's getting behind a Schultz run. Just when I thought he was brighter than that whole Palin fiasco.

2 observations
1. One could do a D&D version of the Doc's post. However, not me, cause...

2. One of the reasons I'm not going to argue about Bernie (though I will say that my opinion is close to what cleek and others have said) is that the whole process of arguing has one adopting a D&D like system that seems to unconsciously select precisely those qualities that tilt the playing field towards men. If I suggested that Harris gets 'Comeliness' points, I'd get pilloried, but a lot of the things that seem to be identified as Bernie's good points (He's grumpy, he's angry, he's not polished, he doesn't take any shit) are qualities that would be flagged as minus points for any female candidate. That really gives me pause for taking up any argument for Bernie cause I am not confident that I'm actually expressing an important point or simply responding to unconscious biases.

bobbyp: Tsk. Tsk. On my very isolated planet, that is precisely the point.

I was talking about "the point" of Schultz's verbiage, which is to convince people that the merest baby steps in the vague direction of socialism would create a hell on earth, precisely to ensure that we never get anywhere near the real thing. Point your Tsks at Schultz, not me.

No idea how likely the various possibilities are. (And from what I've seen so far, Schultz doesn't sound like my kind of guy.) But it might not be necessary to go into total meltdown despair if Schultz does get on the ballot.

The mash-up one wherein Sheriff Liberty Valance jailed Jimmy Stewart, shot John Wayne in the back of the head, and named John Galt Secretary of The Treasury charged with filling Dagny Taggert's bank accounts held in joint name with the mysterious Stanley G. Putin in the Barbados and St. Petersburg.

The Republican subhuman Congress has given the green light for p to declare a national emergency.

I can't wait to read the small print in Cyrillic.

This will the first of many such declarations over the next 22 months.

Like Juan Guaido of Venezuela, I name myself de facto President of the United States.

Marty will sense very deep changes occurring across the governance and administration of this country.

The conservative bowel movement will not be pleased that a declaration of national emergency will carry over in my administration, the movie sequel if you will, until the cleaning is done and only 36 states remain in the Union, with Hazmat suits required for mop up crews to gain entry thru the walls to the other 14 still-smoking territories.

The NRA and hanging judge Brett Kavanaugh will unwittingly help and we should say thank you to them:

New York City, particularly the Mayor and Madame Ocasio Cortez should (unless they choose to ignore the Supreme Court, which is my first choice; fuck any law made up by conservative jurisprudence; force the federal gummint to send in troops) embrace this new regime of conservative terror and begin a city-funded program of arming every individual and family north of 120th Street and East of Morningside Park in North Manhatten with unlimited free military grade weaponry and ammo in case the forces of gentrification fuck with them for one more inch.

I'm fully in accord with text, history, and tradition. So are the female genital mutilators, polluters, and conservative reivers of every sort.

Fuck public safety, yours, not mine, of course.

Also appoint the newly armed with collecting taxes among everyone below 120th Avenue.

Should this new "law" become precedent across the Nation, further destroying states' rights, at least Christine Blasey Ford will now have the legal means to carry and publicly transport her military-grade weaponry on the streets to deal with Brett Kavanaugh if she spots him doing some Trayvon Martin loitering in her neighborhood.

I don't like Sanders, and I'm worried about whatever damage he or his hard-code fans might do next, but I don't think he's anything like the equivalent of Clickbait. (Of course, no one did say quite exactly that.)

Sanders's faults are pretty garden-variety. Clickbait is so far off the charts that I don't think you can even talk about him in terms of "faults." It's hard to even think of a historical parallel to his fatal combination of qualities (if not to his effect on the world). ("Faults" isn't even the right word. That makes it seem like they're qualities intermixed with some good stuff.)

The very first thing that came to my mind when the Clickbait/Sanders comparison was mentioned above was that Clickbait is immeasurably, viciously cruel. I think he takes great pleasure in the pain of others, especially if he thinks he brought it about. I don't get that vibe from Sanders at all.

Similarly -- Clickbait wants to break the country. (Or maybe I'm getting him confused with Turtle.) I don't think Sanders wants to do that. Clickbait actually wants to make the lives of ordinary people worse, especially if they're brown, and I don't think Sanders wants to do that, either. (To the contrary.)

The list could go on. But even where they have some faults in common, Clickbait is the blown-up extreme of all of them, and Sanders is ... just the usual shit.

I think it's more complicated than that. Because of his really astonishing narcissism, he thinks "the country" and he himself are the same thing. So he wants "the country" to change in ways that will benefit him, of course, and can't encompass (by the use of imagination, or intellect, or, you know, knowledge) that that will damage anybody else. And to the extent that anybody might point out that it will (and I'm sure nobody is doing this anymore, if they ever were), he doesn't give a shit, as opposed to it causing him actual pleasure. I think it does give him actual pleasure to cause suffering to people he perceives as enemies. As for whether he is actually capable of imagining anybody else having feelings, in the same way he has feelings, I have my doubts. And that might be where the psychopathy/sociopathy comes in.